Pets – to consent or not, that’s the question?

Tenants can request but landlords can reasonable refuse using reasonable grounds.

I’ve just had 2 visits to the vet with my dog (Sunday and Monday). A urine test, a blood test and a couple of meds and I’m £500 down.
That could easily equate to a tenant not paying the rent which should be a reasonable ground for refusal unless the tenant earns more than the minimum to afford the rent

Reply to the comment left by JB at 20/04/2026 – 15:17
This will have to be tested in court but I am very doubtful you will be able to refuse on this ground. Not all animals require expensive veterinary work and you won’t be able to show in advance that the tenant won’t be able to afford the animal.

Unfortunately most trips to the vet are costly and no consideration has been given to the cost of this.

Personally, I think its cruel to have a dog and go out to work all day leaving it alone. Tenants have told me ‘the dog just sleeps all day’

I’m not keen on ‘house cats’ either which are never let out. Does anyone remember how stir crazy we went during covid?

My soon-to-be-ex wife owned 2 house cats (both now deceased); they never went out. Though generally well-behaved, they would vomit, poop & wee just about anywhere that took their fancy. And I do mean ANYWHERE. Open suitcases was a really great place to wee in.

I had an office at home and always made sure the door was closed so that they could not get in and leave unexpected surprises. But somehow or other I was always collecting cat fur which just drifted in; it got everywhere.

I spent several thousands of pounds on renovations and bringing my property up to a really good standard, having lived in it for many years before renting it out, and now consider my old home to be an investment during my retirement. I do not want to see my investment deteriorate by allowing animals into the house. I’d sooner sell it now and put the proceeds into high-interest savings accounts.

I will be a saying any size dog is unreasonable to keep in a small flat with no garden. Unfortunately we are not allowed to quote past experiences in our reasons to not allow a pet and to this day we have not been told what is a reasonable refusal. I do have experience of a house cat with some tenants who without permission brought in a cat. Smell of the litter tray would spill out into the communal hallway leading to complaints from other tenants. But when we would ask the cat owners if the litter tray was responsible for the smell we were told No it’s always kept clean. But then coincidentally the smell would disappear. I also suspected they would go away for the weekend and leave the cat on its own (they had 4 automated feeding bowls). The cat would also vomit on the carpet. The cat scratched all corners of the carpet and it took along time to be free of the fur balls which kept appearing even after 2 cleans. We had to get rid of all the carpet and the underlay. My husband who is extremely allergic couldn’t go into the flat until it has been completely emptied, carpet and underlay removed and completely wiped down. But that’s still not a reasonable refusal.

Interesting to see this article echo what I said when this was first mooted, which is that many tenants are unlikely to bother with the elaborate procedure of requesting a pet. They’ll just get one, knowing there’s little the landlord can do about it. I doubt any court will grant possession to a landlord claiming breach of tenancy under ground 12 for having a pet that they may have a right to anyway.

No consent – just have to find/be as creative and use the right reasons to push back and say no.

I’m thinking – if any permission requires a material amendment to the TA, then at this point because the request by default induces a separate risk element that was not there beforehand (damage etc), would it be deemed reasonable that as a separate new risk, a guarantor could be requested to mitigate against this risk, especially as you cant ask for a pet deposit, increase the rent etc?

The guarantor would only be on the hook for pet damage.

If this were possible then some may give permission for a pet, whereas other LL’s could refuse on the basis the tenant is not be able to provide one.

If the T is made clear that from the start as well as having the ‘right’ to request a pet, the LL may also require the use of a specific pet guarantor, this could work both ways. Encourage more responsible pet ownership and risk mitigation.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 21/04/2026 – 14:09
agree. and how many LL’s will then go through the process to evict under this ground? Mind you IF the palace is trashed as a result of the T getting a pet and not getting permission, then I would have thought the LL can just point to the result. If the T were a responsible T (and pet owner) then why did they not simply make a request from the start? By not following the process (only brought in for their benefit) it means T’s should be judged on that failure first and foremost.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 21/04/2026 – 18:07
Cold comfort for a landlord though if the only way they can get the pet out is if it trashes the place.